Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S. POABS ENVIROTECH (P) LTD. versus THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MUNICIPAL

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S. POABS ENVIROTECH (P) LTD. v. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MUNICIPAL - WP(C) No. 23593 of 2003(H) [2006] RD-KL 4114 (21 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 23593 of 2003(H)

1. M/S. POABS ENVIROTECH (P) LTD.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MUNICIPAL
... Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY

For Respondent :SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :21/12/2006

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C) No.23593 of 2003 Dated 21st December, 2006.

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner approached this Court with certain grievances regarding acquisition of certain property, pursuant to Ext.P5 notification. There is also a prayer for a direction, not to utilize the land for any purpose other than the establishment of Vilappilsala waste treatment plant and not to hand over the possession of the said area to anybody except the petitioner.

2. The first respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. After having heard counsel on both sides and in view of the talks going on between the parties, I do not think it necessary to go into the details of the contentions taken by the parties. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, inviting reference to the minutes of the meeting dated 10.3.2004, held in the presence of the Minister for Local Self Government Institutions submits that the Corporation had agreed to look into the grievances of the petitioner, in case the petitioner withdrew the writ petition. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is willing to withdraw the writ petition, in case the grievances are considered WP NO.23593/03 2 by the Corporation, as stated in the meeting. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner with notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action in the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that in case the petitioner has still any grievance left, since the writ petition is not considered on merits, it will be open to the petitioner to approach this Court incorporating the intervening developments.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH, J

O.P.No. of 2002

J U D G M E N T

Dated 21st December, 2006.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.